the_Culture_is_great
No bio...
User ID: 3228
Hm, thanks for that explanation, I see what he's going for and why he'd make both kinds of arguments. Kind of agree with him that similarity to other religions is not really the best angle to go for if you're trying to refute Christianity. (I guess I think there's a bit of an angle here -> it's weak evidence that Christianity is the result of the same process that makes humans tell pagan myths, but not really enough on it's own)
the_Culture_is_great
9d ago
the atheist would alternative explanations to be more probable from the get go I would argue that most rational theists act and believe this way too. Don't most religious believe that true miracles, ones that clearly defy natural laws and are direct intervention by some higher power, are rare?
Sure the atheist is more sure that miracles don't exist, but that's kind of the definition of an atheist. They've seen less evidence that miracles are true, and no direct evidence, only testimony. And testimony is weak evidence, especially for questions core to people's identity and upbringing, where even if the person can be trusted, there's also clearly incentive avoid skepticism.
the_Culture_is_great
9d ago
I fail to understand why the similarity of the gospels to myth, whether for, or against, or both(?) has relevance to whether or not god exists.
Like "humans tend to tell similar sorts of stories, with some differences" is a perfectly reasonable rebuttal to these kinds of arguments.
the_Culture_is_great
9d ago
I haven't read the book, but read the review. I definitely find it unpersuasive, focusing on miracles and cosmology feels like a bad approach if you're trying to convince atheists.
Like yes, atheists in the past (and present!) have made incorrect predictions about how people would behave without religious guidance. That's more a failure of their understanding of people, not of the core question of god's existence. And anyways, the modern world's technology, which works perfectly well when designed and operated by atheists and the religious alike, has produced common, everyday wonders that in previous eras been absolutely godlike.
Likewise trying to argue that religious views offer better views of cosmology, or that QM is weird in a way that can be described as "metaphysical"? Like sure, some scientists have found QM weird, or had preconceived notions of what the nature of the universe is. But I'd argue they've gotten a lot closer than religious though ever has.
the_Culture_is_great
1mo ago
Definitely were wrong about the consequences of their ideas
i.e. made a mistake
I feel like conflict vs mistake is poorly named. I don't think anyone disagrees that there's conflict, the question is whether the conflict is due to a difference in understanding of how the world works (mistake theory) or a fundamental difference in values (conflict theory).
There's conflict in both cases, but one side is named "conflict theory".
Theoretically, if you could convince communists that that their ideas would almost certainly lead to poverty and struggle for everyone that they'd stop being communists. They think conflict is necessary, but they only think that conflict is necessary because they think economic wealth is being stolen by the capitalist owner class, and that it's possible to redistribute that wealth more equally without causing economic catastrophe.
the_Culture_is_great
1mo ago
What I'm saying is that making a Nazi salute during a speech is a little like running a red light while driving. Sure, doing it accidentally is better than doing on purpose, but you should be more careful. One of the reasons you should avoid it as much as possible is precisely because it is easy to take out of context.
There's room to debate how annoyed we should get at people accidentally making the gesture - I feel much more strongly that deliberately making the gesture is clearly wrong, and that most people understand why.
the_Culture_is_great
1mo ago
People don't get mad at Nazi salutes because they think the salute itself is bad. Likewise the swastika isn't arcane magic that can cause harm, and Hugo Boss is just a fashion brand. Most left wingers have few issues with the modern German state and it's language. Nobody is confused about this.
Context matters. When you're a politician (or other political public figure) giving a speech , making an unironic Nazi salute communicates a message. And that message is typically "I support the ideals of the Nazi Party".
If you don't want to send that message don't make a Nazi salute. Not even accidentally. You should know what it represents.
Essentially nobody is confused about if the Nazis are bad. I'll grant that there's arguments to made about exactly how bad they where, or how also bad the Allies were, but that doesn't change the fact that you shouldn't use Nazi symbolism if you don't want to be accused of being a Nazi.
the_Culture_is_great
7mo ago
I have always felt that roads should exclusively be for motorized vehicles. On this you and most cycling advocates agree
And sidewalks should exclusively be for human powered means of locomotion (including cycles). You realize cyclists can travel 30km/hr+ right? That's actually quite dangerous to pedestrians, even if collisions wouldn't usually be fatal.
Why limit ourselves to roads or sidewalks, nothing in-between? Bike lanes/cycle tracks are that in-between, suitable for bicycles or low powered electric vehicles (scooters, e-bikes, etc). Sure, sometimes they're not suitable or worth the expense, but in many situations, like dense urban cores where motorized vehicular traffic already moves very slowly, and sidewalks are congested, having some space dedicated for bicycles works out great.
the_Culture_is_great
7mo ago
Why was stopping, walking the bike around the dumpster, and then getting back on not an option? The picture is posted below, and clearly this was an option, and would have been the safest option in this situation.
However, blockages in bike lanes, whether due to construction, parking violations, or poorly maintained lanes means that cyclists encounter obstacles like this extremely frequently. Getting on and off a bicycle, losing all momentum is enough of a pain in the ass that basically nobody does it, preferring to take the small, yet significant risk of merging into traffic to save time and effort. It's similar to the risk that basically all drivers take on when they speed slightly, or roll through stop signs.
The difference is that in the cyclists case, the risk is almost entirely taken on personally, as bikes are fragile. When motorists take on those risks, it often disproportionally endangers the pedestrians and cyclists nearby.
Maybe the cyclist made a mistake, maybe they didn't. But everybody on the road makes mistakes, and road design should take this into account. Cycling advocates want to improve road design so that mistakes are much less deadly for cyclists, and in many cases these design changes don't significantly impact motorized vehicle traffic.
As for "where does this dumpster go":
- the dumpster was there illegally already - the company ended up being fined (a trivial amount, but still it was illegal)
- the sidewalk perhaps, slowing pedestrian traffic
- the current location, but with temporary barriers protecting the bike lane
- the current location, but with signs instructing cyclists to merge, and motorists to "share the lane" (common practice in Toronto)
More options
Context Copy link